If you think something that cannot be detected in any way, nevertheless must exist, and must love us, you are an idiot.

Oh, and careful there, you have left a lot of straw lying around, man, it can easily catch fire...

You really like making great first impressions don't you.

Not impressed with your childish attempt at humor.

We're not the ones with an invisible friend. We gave up on those and grew up.

YOU believe that there is a giant ,invisible, non-material, magical super brain with no location that resides everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

The moon is not made of cheese and the earth is not flat. Sorry, just because you want a super hero doesn't mean there is a super hero.

Go back to your mental sandbox and get back to us when you actually care to debate.

Oh the fun I could have with this but I'd have to learn where you plagiarized it from first.

Is it just me or are intellectual dishonesty and the lack of original thought tenets of Christianity?

freeminer, coming on here and spouting that crap to a bunch of actual atheists, who are in a far better position than you, and the people who wrote that stuff, to know the realities of the various ways we came to be atheists, and what it means within the context of our lives, just makes you look even more ridiculous and stupid than you are.

I tried to break each and every line of this up for separate responses, but the thing kept auto-formatting numbers and not making allowances for spaces. So I'll do it like this. Number to assertion and answer.

1. Definitely wrong, did not become an Atheist because of Sunday School at 10. I was religious for a huge majority of my life. Although it is funny that you would admit that Sunday School could cause future Atheists to be deconverted.

2. Plain stupid. I do not believe in a omnibenevolent God. I think god is a lie.

3. Too dumb to even answer. Can't believe the author of this actually thought that one up as being clever.

4.More than a half dozen, more like a thousand. The assertion of God's gift is ridiculous cause I have to remind you that I do not believe in God.

5. Since when does size have to do with the existence of God ? Whether the Universe was big or small, it still does not make logical sense that a God would be behind it. Useless assertion.

6. Nope, I never use those questions. However, I have never met a religious person that did not try some sort of trickery to not answer the questions. But I have far more than trick questions to mess with Christians.

7. Nope, the only time that I fool with anyone Christian is when they try to  impose their view on my life. (I. E. when a bunch of idiots wish to push creationism into the schools, I write to my newspapers and local government in outrage).

8.Nope, another useless one. I can not be angry at what I do not believe in. I can be angry at superstitious pricks that try to force their myths upon me.

9. Nope, never argued that. C;mon freakminer, can't you come up with something original ?

10. Yes. I reject personal testimony from people who claim to have "felt" something that they can not prove. However, I have never said that I did not FEEL something during all of my years in the church. I just now understand the psychology of insane people in large groups and how delusions can be shared.

11. Philosophical critique ? Hardly. I am not much of a speculating philosopher. I prefer scientific facts.

12. I haven't the slightest idea what that is supposed to mean. I have never heard that. I HAVE heard that whomever makes the claim has the burden of proof to make the claim.

13. Of course the God of the Gaps argument has been used throughout history. The Black Death was not blamed on germs, it was attributed to GOD by Christians. Same reasoning as the creationist today about the gaps in life and the universe. It is not my fault that God of the gaps is a dumb argument that Christians use. (Notice, I have to use the word dumb alot when dealing with Christian beliefs ?)

14. Yes, I have seen much pain and tragedy and yes, I do believe that God should have done something about it had God existed. However, I noticed that you offered no reason to explain why God WOULD allow people to die of cancer ? So what is the point of your statement ?

15. Sanity is not statistical. Where do you get that idea ? Do you believe that just "majority rules" ? Total fallacy. I could give you some quotes to refute that notion further if you continue this.

16. Pointless. I have no idea what your talking about. That has never occurred to me or anyone else that I know.

17. Nope, never done that.

18. Of course everyone is born an Atheist, prove otherwise.

19. So believing in the existence of something that can not be tasted, touched, sensed or felt is open minded ? Another useless point

20. My lack of belief in God has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with lack of evidence.

21. I fight about the people that try to force their delusions upon the reality of the world. Can anyone deny the poison of religion ?

22. Completely untrue. I WANTED to believe in God for years. But the facts proved otherwise.

23. If man is responsible for the problems of the world only man can fix them. No, I don't blame god for all the tragedy, I point out that this proves a loving God does not exist.

24. You need to read what the Big Bang theory really states before making such a useless observation that proves you do not understand science.

25. Wrong again, science continually discovers and re-evaluates, unlike religion

26. Plenty of evidence to support the existence of ancient cultures, No evidence to support hallucinations and wishful thinking.

27. Then you need to read these threads. There are plenty of theists on here, even Biblical Theists. They make a stronger case for Atheism than any of us ever could.

You got any more assertions that you would like for me to de-bunk ? Or is that the crux of your argument ?

Why are you wasting time and effort on him? Is he not a bothersome child pining for attention?

LOL. The only proof that my god exists is that there is no proof that my god exists but that in of itself is the proof ? The only proof is NO PROOF ?

Is it me or does there seem to be something logically wrong with that particular type of thinking  ?

Okay, freeminer...this one's for you:

You may be a fundy theist if....

1. You became an theist when you were 10 years old, based on ideas of God that you learned in Sunday School. Your ideas about God haven't changed since.
2. You think that the primary aim of an omnibenevolent God is to save your soul from hell.
3. You believe that extra drippy ice-cream is a logical proof for the existence of an God, because the drip splashed on a table in the form of the Virgin Mary
4. Although you've memorized a half a dozen proofs that He does exist, you still think you're God's gift to the ignorant masses.
5. You believe the astronomical size of the universe somehow proves God, as if God needed a large universe in order to exist.
6. You think questions like, "Without God, how do you have morals, etc." then jump up and down and scream "no you don't! no you don't" when atheists provide an explanation....
7. Related to the above, you spend a great deal of your spare time writing to atheist websites asking them these very questions.
8. You use scripture on a public forum for arguments for God's existence.
9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" claiming there is no meaningful distinction in real life.
10. You consistently try to debate the existence of God to people who personally have never seen him but you only accept personal experience for the existence of god from your tradition but deny it for other traditions. (ie Christians calling Muhamed a raving mad man or Joseph Smith liar, etc.)
11. You can't make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.
12. You insist that atheist must prove atheism.
13. You adamantly believe in the "God of the gaps".
14. When you were a child, someone came down with a deadly disease and prayed and prayed for God to take it away. You then insist that God must have had a greater purpose in mind for taking him or her, and for the same reason that an atheist rejects god, your faith  is made stronger.
15. You believe that more than 10 percent of Americans are theist because they have "common sense", but reject this notion when you are in the minority...
16. You're a spoiled fifteen year old boy who lives in the suburbs and you go into a chat room to declare that, "I know there is a God because because I have no suffering and a great life, and refuse to see the world where suffering is great...
17. You attack your fellow theists, who hold the "belief that there is a god" but that god goes by a different name, calling them "liars."
18. Going with the definition of "without a belief in God", you insist that all people are born atheists, and that dogs, cats, rocks, and trees are as well. You make statements like, "There are a lot of atheists that are rocks, so there are a lot of atheists that are as stupid as a rock."
19. You insist that the world was created in 6 days, there was a global flood, Noah had dinosaurs on the ark, and evolution is a made up claim. Then you get pissed when people don't take you seriously when you talk about science.
20. You say that there is a God and that those who believe in God do so in blind faith, yet you try and prove his existence....
21. While you believe in God, you feel justified on attacking those who don't believe in something that you KNOW exist and fighting against or even discussing about a non-existent of such beings is a symptom of mental illness because you cite 19th century psychology that said atheism was a mental illness.
22. You complain when atheists reject your appeal to their emotions when justifying your belief in God yet you feel justified on appealing to your emotions for belief in God.
23. You say God is responsible for the starvation, sickness, pain and suffering in the world and say it is God's wrath.
24. You keep using out modded cosmological arguments for the existence of God when the evidence says otherwise...
25. You say that the existence of God is a a mystery, since no one can know the mind of god, and you punt to this when you don't have an answer to an obvious logical contradiction in your account for the existence of a deity.
26. You believe in many things about history that fit into your religion yet you refuse to accept personal modern-day or historical testimony from someone who has personally experienced another God from another religion or worldview that does not fit into your own.
27. You ask atheist on this forum to address issues you raise. When you don't like the answers or can't accept them, you proceed to ramble more and more ad nauseum.
     

I prefer the 95 A-Theses myself

I only have one proof that the god of the bible does not exist:

1. The bible claims complete torture for atheists.

2. In order for something to be complete torture for me, Christians like Freeminer would have to be there to annoy me with their 'arguments'.

3. The bible claims Freeminer will be in Heaven far removed from me and my total torture.

Since Freeminer can not be in Hell with me to annoy me with his 'logic', Hell can not exist. This proves the bible is not infallable and it's claims are false.

The following actually do apply to me.

11, 19, 21, 26

Now number 11 hardly counts, because I've also made a parody of Euclid's Elements the centerpiece of a philosophical critique.  Reductio ad Absurdum is nothing unique to the atheist position.

Regarding number 19, I must ask what exactly you mean by "exists" if the thing cannot be measured in any way.  How does this thing impact the universe at all?  If its effects are so minute that they can't possibly be measured, then it can't really be all that important.

  P.S.  Thanks for including measurement here.  Too many theists forget that part and stick only with unaided human senses.

21: True, but when a therapist works with a schizophrenic, we do not think the therapist insane, nor do we take the therapist's discussion of the schizophrenic's imaginary friends as a sign of mental illness on the therapist's part.  So could it be that theists are the schizophrenics, and we're just playing therapist?

And in regards to 26, I fail to see the connection between believing that people believe things, and believing the things themselves.  Unless you're saying that atheists believe the claims of ancient Mayans and Egyptians and whatnot, in which case this one doesn't apply to me.  Or I guess you could be saying that atheists don't believe that theists actually believe in god, in which case this still doesn't apply to me.

Yeah, like most of those 'points', that makes no sense whatever.

First, there are no 'proofs' that God doesn't exist, just NOTHING remotely establishing that God does. A typical 'fundy' atheist would think there was absolutely no evidence FOR God, which is definitely arguable. He could also hold that all concepts of God are explicitly self-contradictory, which is definitely a very reasonable point. But even Dawkins doesn't hold that some concept of God is absolutely impossible, just extremely unlikely. So that imagined 'atheist' is very much a straw-man.

And even if an Atheist thought he had such 'proofs', how would the second half of the statement make any sense whatever??

Conceivably, one might think he had absolutely justified his atheist position, but I can't imagine any kind of atheist thinking in terms of being 'God's gift' to anyone, even less so a 'fundy' one.

One might think they were 'destined' to 'preach' atheism to the ignorant theists, if that's what the original writer of that point had in mind.

Just typical of the totally f**ked-up 'thinking behind that list.

Almost as stupid as many of the Jewish Mitzvah, the 613 commandments given in the Torah, which I heard about in some detail for the first time on a recent episode of the "Irreligiosophy" podcast, which that sort of list reminded me of. Both explicitly trying to make up some large target number of points by thinking of all the ways they could express a few basic thoughts.

Lol. Good point. 

Although, even reading the OP now, I can see why everyone was annoyed.

I don't agree that any of them accurately describes me, except maybe the first half of 6 and the beginning bit of 18.

LOL.

Yea, this probably should have been moved since the OP violates the spirit of the thing to start with.

To be honest, I never notice when I'm in that part of the forum anyway.  Whoops.

What do you think, Bob, should we move this to general?

Same here.  The only time I even see the other menu is when I'm going to start a new thread.  Moving.

Edit:  Now everyone can be as nasty as they want.  Yay!

Well, I guess this doesn't apply to me - I've been an atheist my entire life and never attended Sunday school. It's funny that you deride Sunday School, though - by that token, I assume you're saying that you know better? Care to give us poor fools a lesson, then? 

And don't insult the cognitive ability of children; they're a lot more clever than we give them credit for (unfortunately, they're also more naive and vulnerable to parental browbeating).

I think 'omnibenevolence' is a nonsense term. It's incoherent, and what traits are usually ascribed to benevolence do not match the incredibly hostile universe we inhabit (have you seen the pictures from Australia & South America? How about the images from the airport terminal that was just bombed? An omnibenevolent deity decided that these are the sort of events that should occur in the domain under his charge? 

Besides that, though, yes - I do believe that anyone claiming to be benevolent ought to be someone who is ensuring other people's enjoyment.

What a shit analogy. Losing your home and family to a landslide is on a slightly different level than the inconvenience of trying to eat melty ice cream, as is having your limbs blown off by a Chechen rebel's explosive for the sin of trying to pick up your luggage at the airport.

You know what, though? I'll even challenge you on this extremely basic argument - why would an omnibenevolent, omniscient deity not create absolutely perfect food for us to enjoy, that would never spoil or become 'drippy'? In fact, why would an omnibenevolent deity create a universe where eating is a necessity at all, much less a universe where you must eat other living organisms?

I'm well aware that i'm just tilting at windmills, thanks. 

No; in fact, I know of no person at all who makes such an argument. I think you're confusing arguments against a deity with arguments against Biblical literalism and/or a young Earth.

That question is a valid rebuttal of the concept of omnipotence, and it's one that's never been fairly refuted. And no, members here haven't had to suddenly retreat from this forum because, "ZOMG, CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS!@!!!!@!!!"

I've never heard a single person say this. I've heard people say,  "Well, if god does exist, he's sure an asshole," - but that's quite different (and often said with a wink or two).

It is a meaningful distinction, assuming you're interested in honest discourse. One is a positive assertion (I believe there is no God), one is a null hypothesis (I don't know that there is/don't see the evidence for/am not convinced there is a God). I'm in the former camp myself in any case, so your argument is a strawman. 

That's half correct; it's not as simple as God not appearing for me, though. It's the way in which deities totally contradict much of what we know about the functioning of the universe and the terrific void of any evidence outside of personal testimony. I also reject testimony about UFOs, monsters, ridiculous conspiracies and ghosts if the person giving the testimony cannot provide evidence to support themselves.

The Invisible Pink Unicorn and Flying Spaghetti Monster are vehicles for good natured ridiculing of theist arguments - they are not the cornerstone of any philosophical critiques. Again, though, I'll happily take you up on the challenge - do you believe that a flying monster made out of magical space spaghetti manipulates events on Earth? If you don't, why don't you? Can you prove the monster doesn't exist?

This is just a total fucking strawman. I've never heard the argument made that the most common lie among Christians is that they were formerly atheists. and you're right - whoever makes such an argument needs to back that up with some data, or it's not a credible statement.

That being said, some Christians do lie about being former atheists, and I'm more than happy to prove it to you (See: Ray Comfort & Kirk Cameron). 

You're really on a roll taking down those burlap sacks, eh?

'God of the Gaps' is something reserved mostly for deists, not theists, because a deist always finds another place to tuck their rather ambiguous deity. Personally, i'm just done with debating deism. I've yet to meet one that was cruel, bigoted or otherwise attempting to use their belief in some supernatural higher order to justify acts of malice, so I'm just letting it go.

...Are you projecting your own experiences and/or doubts, now?

Seriously, that's never happened to me. A few years ago a friend of mine got himself killed in a car wreck and his widow asked me if I thought she would ever see him again, and though it caused me (and her) a lot of pain to say it, I told her that she very likely would not.

I'm glad I told the truth on that occasion. She was quite angry with me for a time, but she threw out all of the bullshit literature & trinkets that came with her dogma a few months later, moved on and found another human being to love instead of being trapped praying and mourning for someone that's gone.

I'm sorry, but anyone who tells you that a deceased person isn't gone, that you'll see them again later, is bullshitting you. Call it conniving if you want (I wouldn't go that far); it certainly is lying at the very least.  

This is an appeal to popularity. Yes, a lot of people believe in a deity. That does not somehow lend an idea more credence. A lot of people believe in ghosts, UFOs, government conspiracies and the magical powers of bullshit diets/dietary supplements to make them 'extra healthy', too.

Oh, it's much more embarrassing than that. I'm a broke 25 year old posting from the attic of my (now quite devout) parents' home, finishing my education and trying to find a place in the world. 

Claiming that my station in life invalidates my arguments without ever trying to address those arguments would be an Ad Hominem fallacy.

I don't get attacked for my stronger stance by fellow atheists, but yes, I do get challenged on it (and rightly so). Frankly, I don't honestly care to defend the position - I find the concept of worship totally alien & totally disgusting. It's as ridiculous to me as sticking your hand into the spinning blades of a Blend Tec blender. There's no way I would entertain the proposition - it's not the way my brain turned-out, I guess. 

Well, I can't really say that dogs or even babies are 'atheists' (it's sort of tautological; they don't even have the faculties for belief, so calling them non-believers is true but uninteresting), but it is definitely fair to say that no person on the planet would spontaneously convert to Christianity or any other major religion without outside help. They might craft their own religion, of course. 

Narrow-minded in that you will only accept one causal agent for the universe's existence. One that you have no evidence for, and one that you perform mental gymnastics in order to fit modern discoveries with. Exploring the universe first and then drawing conclusions based on that exploration is not narrow minded. 

Actually, it's based on my inability to believe in such a deity. What would you have me do? Lie? 

You're right, I cannot disprove that a deity does not exist - I don't care. Nothing offered from the apologists is remotely convincing, there is no physical evidence, the myths are ridiculous and quite obviously fictional; what conclusion do you expect an incredulous person like me to make? 

I do not believe and could not force myself to even if I were so masochistic that I wanted to believe. I find worship to be an alien, distasteful, thing. 

Well, you're the one forcing my hand. You brought it up, so yes, I'm going to challenge you on it. That's what discourse is all about.

God as depicted in the OT is an absolute monster. You don't agree?

I try to contain my arguments to their apologetics, but yes, sometimes I will also make unfair jabs at their emotional attachment to a deity if a discussion gets heated. So it goes.

I'm sorry - didn't your deity supposedly create man? If so, he's responsible for what he created (see: a person's responsibility for creating faulty goods or dangerous materials like explosives).

Besides that, man is certainly not responsible for events like hurricanes, plagues, droughts, eruptions, floods, etc. So, how does the finger of God avoid an indictment on these charges according to your apologetics?

The 'big bang' did not come out of a big ball of matter, and it did not pop out of nowhere. We don't currently know the origins of the singularity; we just know that our universe sprang from one - and in fact it was a clergyman who made this discovery, not an atheist. Physics is not my field of expertise, so I can't enlighten you with the mechanics / mathematics that are the foundation of the big bang theory (ask Eloise). 

I don't state my disbelief as an outright 'fact' - it's simply strong disbelief. And demonstrating someone else's argument as being empty does not somehow strengthen your own empty argument. 

We have evidence that tells us the story of the Mayans & Egyptians. Evidence like enormous fucking Pyramids and temples. If challenged on the existence of the Egyptians, an Egyptologist wouldn't likely just hotly demand that you disprove their existence - they would show you their monuments, their writings, their old tombs and, in some instances, their old bones.

What comparable evidence has a Christian ever brought forward for the kingdom of God?  

BULLSHIT

Not one thing, not one time EVER on this forum did the administration decide to erase someone's arguments or ban them, no matter how many broken record apologetic arguments they brought up. I would know - I was once a (quite shitty) moderator here who was eager to pull the trigger on trolling theists, and Brian wouldn't have it, and in retrospect I'm quite glad he didn't. 

Compare that with what goes on in most Christian forums, where you're often just banned for saying you're an atheist and arguments against the faith are immediately censored as 'disruptive'.